Wikipedia:RFA as RFC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion.

This is an example of how an WP:RFA process modeled on WP:RFC might look. Please discuss at the talk page or make improvements by editing this page.

See also Wikipedia:RFA as RFC/Werdna, a trial run.


~~~~.

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Nomination

[edit] Nomination statement

This is a summary written by user(s) making a nomination for adminship. Users editing or endorsing the "Statements of Objection" section should not edit the "Nomination statement" section.

[edit] Acceptance

This is a statement of acceptance by the nominee.

{Add statement here and sign.}

[edit] Users certifying the nomination

Three editors in good standing must certify the nomination before it is listed for discussion.

  1. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. - --ais523 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. - Example User 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this nomination

Users who support the nomination as presented should sign here. Comments should go on the discussion page

  1. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements of Objection

Each statement in objection to this nomination should be presented in a separate section similar to the example below. Users that agree with one or more of these statements may endorse those statements with which they agree. Users presenting additional objections may create a new subsection with a statement outlining those objections.


[edit] Objection

This is a concern raised about the nominee that may be significant enough to preclude them for adminship. Users editing or endorsing an "Objection" should not edit a response to this opposing note, or the nomination.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit responses to it.}


Users who believe the concern is legitimate and significant enough to preclude the listed user from adminship:

[edit] Responses to Objections

Statements may be presented below that respond to opposing statements. Note that this is not the same as supporting the nomination.

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by a user who wishes to respond to an opposing note. Users editing or endorsing a "Response" should not edit the opposing note it responds to.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the summary it responds to.}


Users who agree that the response satisfies the objection raised in an "Opposing note":

[edit] Further discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.